Field Tests of Alternative Covers in the Alternative Cover Assessment Program

(ACAP)

William H. Albright Desert Research Institute

Craig H. BensonUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Why ACAP?

� Provide field-scale data for alternative designs

� Provide field-scale data for conventional designs

� Side-by-side field tests answer question of equivalency

� Additional instrumentation to advance the science and practice of engineering

Albany, GA

Omaha, NE

Monticello, UT

Monterey, CA

Altamont, CA

Sacramento, CA

Boardman, OR

Polson, MTHelena, MT

Cedar Rapids, IA

Cincinnati, OH

Logan, OH

Apple Valley CA

ACAP Field Sites

1 m

Sacramento CA Thin Alternative

1 m

Sacramento CA Thick Alternative

1 m

Altamont CA Alternative

Apple Valley CA Alternative

1 m

Boardman OR Thin Alternative

1 m

Boardman OR Thick Alternative

1 m

Polson MT Alternative

1 m

Helena MT Alternative

1 m

Monticello UT Alternative

1 m

Omaha NE Thin Alternative

1 m

Omaha NE Thick Alternative

1 m

Cedar Rapids IA E-Cap Alternative

1 m

Albany GA E-Cap Alternative

1 m

Monterey CA Alternative

1 m

Summary• At some arid and semi-arid locations properly

designed alternative covers can limit percolation to ~1-2 mm/yr• At humid and sub-humid locations

inadequate water storage capacity and/or lower than expected transpiration rates can result in high rates of percolation• Field data suggest that performance

predictions for AEFCs are more complicated than currently believed